0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 3429 стр.Sep 21, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 34

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

1.1 Introduction

Material balance is the application of the law of conservation of mass to oil and gas

reservoirs and aquifers. It is based on the premise that reservoir space voided by

production is immediately and completely filled by the expansion of remaining fluids and

rock. As demonstrated later in this chapter, material balance is a useful engineering

method for understanding a reservoir's past performance and predicting its future

potential.

To understand and analyze gas reservoirs, the following conditions will be applied.

1. Reservoir hydrocarbon fluids are in phase equilibrium at all times, and

equilibrium is achieved instantaneously after any pressure change;

2. The reservoir can be represented by a single, weighted pressure average at any

time (Pressure gradients in the reservoir cannot be considered by the method.)

3. Fluid saturations are uniform throughout the reservoir at any time (Saturation

gradients cannot be handled.)

4. Conventional PVT relationships for normal gas are applicable and are sufficient

to describe fluid phase behavior in the reservoir.

Material balance calculations can be used to:

1. Determine original oil and gas in place in the reservoir;

2. Determine original water in place in the aquifer;

3. Estimate expected oil and gas recoveries as a function of pressure decline in a

closed reservoir producing by depletion drive, or as a function of water

influx in a water-drive reservoir;

4. Predict future behavior of a reservoir (production rates, pressure decline,

and water influx);

5. Verify volumetric estimates of original fluids in place;

6. Verify future production rates and recoveries predicted by decline-curve analysis;

7. Determine which primary producing drive mechanisms are responsible for a

reservoir's observed behavior, and quantify the relative importance of each

mechanism;

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of a water drive;

9. Study the interference of fields sharing a common aquifer.

Data requirements to accurately apply the material balance method consists of: (1)

cumulative fluid production at several times (cumulative oil, gas, and water); (2) average

reservoir pressures at the same times, averaged accurately over the entire reservoir; (3)

fluid PVT data at each reservoir pressure as well as formation compressibility.

1.1

The general material-balance equation for a depletion-drive gas reservoir, neglecting

water and formation compressibilities is expressed by:

p pi G p

=

1

(1.1)

z zi

G

It is one of the most often used relationships in gas reservoir engineering. It is usually

valid enough to provide excellent estimates of original gas-in-place based on observed

production, pressure, and PVT data.

During the life of a gas reservoir, cumulative production is recorded, and average

reservoir pressures are periodically measured. At each measured reservoir pressure the

gas z-factor is determined to calculate P/z, and the result plotted as shown in Figure 1.1

below. Notice that Equation 1.1 results in a linear relationship between P/z and Gp. That

is, as gas is produced from the reservoir, the ratio P/z should decline linearly for a

volumetric reservoir. Note that for an ideal gas, pressure alone would decline linearly.

4000

(p/z)i

3500

Last measured

data point

p/z, psia

3000

2500

2000

extrapolate

1500

1000

(p/z)a

500

G=10 Bscf

Gpa=8.5 Bscf

0

0

10

11

12

Figure 1.1 Example of linear relationship between p/z and gas produced for a volumetric

reservoir.

1.2

Example 1.1

Determine the original gas-in-place and ultimate recovery at an abandonment pressure of

500 psia for the following reservoir.

Gas specific gravity

= 0.70

Reservoir temperature

= 150F

Original reservoir pressure

= 3000 psia

Abandonment reservoir pressure = 500 psia

Production and pressure history as shown in the following table.

Gp, mmscf

0

580

1390

3040

P, psia

3000

2800

2550

2070

z,

p/z, psia

0.822

3650

0.816

3431

0.810

3148

0.815

2540

Steps:

Determine z-factor and calculate P/z.

Plot P/z versus GP. (Example shown in Fig. 1.1)

Draw a straight line through the data points.

Extrapolate the straight line to p/z = 0, where Gp must equal G, the OGIP.

From Figure 1.1 G = 10.0 Bscf.

5) Ultimate recovery is estimated from an abandonment pressure of 500 psia

and z = 0.945, thus (p/z)a = 529 psia. From Fiqure 1.1, the ultimate

recovery is estimated to be 8.5 Bscf, or 85% of the OGIP.

1)

2)

3)

4)

In the example, the data points formed a easily-recognizable straight 1ine, but in practice

this may not always be the case. Theoretically, there should be a linear relationship

between p/z and G. However, in practice there are several factors that may cause the

relationship to be nonlinear. Formation compressibility may be significant, as in an

unconsolidated sand reservoir. If this extra stored energy is not accounted for, the

measured data points will be extrapolated to an optimistically high value of OGIP. In the

example, if the reservoir actually had an OGIP of 10.0 Bscf, but the formation was

unconsolidated and had significant compressibility, the three measured reservoir

pressures after production had begun would have been greater, and extrapolation to OGIP

would have exceeded 10.0 Bscf. Secondly, average reservoir pressure may not have been

accurately determined. This is a common problem, and the plot of p/z versus Gp

frequently shows more fluctuations from a straight line than in Figure 1.1. Finally, if a

water drive were acting on the gas reservoir, pressure support would occur and the plot of

p/z versus Gp would give an overly optimistic OGIP.

In this example the recovery factor was estimated simply by the ratio of ultimate recovery

to the original gas-in-place. Alternatively, it is possible to estimate ultimate recovery

efficiency (RE) in a depletion-drive gas reservoir with negligible water and formation

compressibilities by:

1.3

B gi

= 1

RFvol = 1

B ga

p a zi

z a pi

(1.2)

For the example, ultimate recovery efficiency can be estimated from Equation (1.2),

529

RFvol = 1

= 85% of OGIP

3650

operational considerations, reservoir variables and economics. In general, the higher the

reservoir permeability the lower the abandonment pressure. However, in tight gas sands,

where permeability is in the milli- to microdarcy range, abandonment pressures are being

reduced by a variety of methods targeting bottomhole flowing pressure. These methods

can be on the surface, such as adding compression, or in the wellbore, such as adding

plunger lift or capillary tubes. The added benefit can be quite substantial. For instance,

in the previous example if the abandonment pressure could be reduced in half, the

incremental gain in recovery would be approximately 1 Bscf.

The previous section provides the basic concepts in material balance for simple,

volumetric gas reservoirs. However, nonlinearity can occur in the p/z vs Gp relationship

as a result of water influx, or changes in rock and water compressibilities in geopressured

reservoirs, or the inability to achieve average reservoir pressure such as in low

permeability reservoirs.

A comprehensive form of the gas material balance equation is given by:

p

1 c e( p ) ( p i p ) =

z

(1.3)

1

p (p / z )i

Wp B w WinjB w We

G p G inj + Wp R sw +

G

Bg

z i

where Ginj and Winj are gas and water injection, respectively; Rsw is solution gas in the

water phase, and ce(p) is an average effective compressibility term. From this general

material balance equation we will investigate the affects of water influx, rock/water

compressibilities and low-permeability systems.

The impact of water influx is to provide pressure support, resulting in slower pressure

decline. Subsequently, gas reservoirs associated with aquifers show a flattening of the

p/z curve. Figure 1.2 shows p/z curves for gas reservoirs with varying strengths of aquifer

support. In all cases, linear extrapolation of the water-drive cases to determine OGIP

would lead to optimistically high values.

1.4

strength

(p/z)i

(p/z)a

water drive

p/z

(p/z)a

Depletion drive

Gp

Figure 1.2 Water Drive Gas Reservoir p/z Curve

The rate of the gas withdrawal is directly proportional to the ability of water to encroach.

For example, a high withdrawal rate coupled with a strong aquifer could lead to early

coning and/or pockets of trapped gas. Agarwal, et. al, in 1965 attributed the low gas

recovery in water drive reservoirs to the trapped residual gas saturation and a volumetric

displacement efficiency less than unity. They showed that the size and properties of the

aquifer and the withdrawal rates, along with residual gas saturation and volumetric sweep

efficiency impact the ultimate gas recovery and thus are major factors in designing field

development strategy.

When water invades a gas reservoir, the net volume of water influx reduces the gas

volume. The material balance equation must reflect this addition, subsequently, we can

write,

original volume remaining volume net water

=

+

influx, rcf

Assuming no injection has occurred, that rock and water compressibility changes are

small and the solubility of gas in the water is negligible, then the general material balance

equation reduces to:

p p Gp

1

(1.4)

= 1

+

We Wp B w

z z i

G GB g

where,

= cumulative water influx into the gas reservoir, rcf

We

Wp

= cumulative water production, rcf [Note: an alternative expression is WpBw

where Bw is the water formation volume factor in rbbl/stb. Then Wp can be expressed in

stb]

Rearranging Eq. (1.4) to solve for gas-in-place results in the following expression,

1.5

G=

G p B g We W p

B g B gi

(1.5)

Early in the producing life of a reservoir, the difference in the denominator is small and

therefore could lead to erroneous values of gas-in-place. Subsequently, to obtain accurate

results, Eq. (1.5) should be used over longer periods of time.

To estimate the ultimate recovery efficiency in a water-drive gas reservoir requires an

estimate of residual or trapped gas saturation. In a water-drive gas reservoir, gas

saturation at abandonment (called residual or trapped) does not equal original gas

saturation: Sgr = Sgt Sgi; therefore,

B gi Sgr p a z i Sgr

= 1

RFwd = 1

(1.6)

B ga Sgi z a p i Sgi

Implicit in the derivation of Equation (1.6) is the assumption that volumetric sweep

efficiency for gas, Ev, is 100%. This assumption is optimistic as frequently the

displacement of gas by water results in unswept, bypassed portions of the reservoir,

increasing the trapped gas saturation. Subsequently, a modified form of Eq. (1.6) is:

B gi Sgr 1 E v

RFwd = 1 E v

+

(1.7)

B ga Sgi

E v

Some published values of residual gas saturation were given by Geffen (1952) and are

shown in Table 1.1 below.

Porous Material

Formation

Sgr, %

Unconsolidated sand

16

Slightly consolidated sand

21

(synthetic)

17

Synthetic consolidated sand Selas Porcelain

Norton Alundum

24

Consolidated sandstones

Wilcox

25

Frio

30-38

Nellie Bly

30-36

Frontier

31-24

Springer

33

Torpedo

34-37

Tensleep

40-50

Limestone

Canyon Reef

50

Table 1.1 Residual gas saturation after waterflood as measured on core plugs

(Geffen,et. al, 1952)

1.6

Example 1.2

The reservoir is the same as described in the previous example except that pressure is

fully maintained at its original value by a strong water drive. Assume that the entire gas

reservoir is swept by water. Given: Sgi = 75% and Sgt = 35%, respectively.

What if Ev = 60%?

Since the pressure is constant for the life of the reservoir, a simplified form of Eq. (1.6)

becomes,

Sgr

= 1 0.35 = 53%

RFwd = 1

Sgi

0.75

Similiarly, if the volumetric sweep efficiency is accounted for, then Eq. (1.7) results in

RFwd = 32%.

Both are much less than typical recovery efficiencies in depletion-drive gas reservoirs.

Note that a partial water drive does not maintain pressure completely, and thus would

allow some gas production by pressure depletion, and recovery efficiency would

improve. In general, recovery efficiency in a gas reservoir is much better under depletiondrive than under water-drive.

A modified material balance for water drive gas reservoirs was proposed by Hower and

Jones (1991) and Schafer, et al (1993) to account for pressure gradients that develop

across the invaded region. Previous theory assumed the invaded zone pressure is

equivalent to the reservoir pressure and is constant. The modified approach accounts for

pressure gradients in the invaded zone due to capillary pressure. The method predicts a

higher pressure at the original reservoir boundary and a much lower pressure in the

uninvaded region of the reservoir. Both water influx calculations and reservoir

performance predictions are influenced by the pressure gradient term.

The pressure drop in the invaded zone is given by the steady state radial flow equation.

141.2q w w ln(ro / rt )

pinv = po pt =

(1.8)

k rw kh

where

po

= pressure at the original reservoir boundary

pt

= pressure at the current reservoir boundary

ro

= radius at the original reservoir boundary

rt

= radius at the current reservoir boundary

The relative permeability to water is evaluated at the endpoint; i.e., at residual gas

saturation; therefore it is not required to obtain the entire relative permeability curve.

The residual gas saturation is assumed constant throughout the entire invaded region.

The water flow rate can be estimated using the water influx term, qw = dWe/dt. The

resulting modified material balance equation becomes:

G p B g = G ( B g B gi ) + Gt ( B gt B g ) + We BwW p

1.7

(1.9)

where Gt is the volume of trapped gas in the invaded region of the reservoir and is a

function of Sgr and average pressure in the invaded region.

Results from the proposed modified material balance method agreed with a numerical

simulation model and demonstrated the influence of relative permeability on the reservoir

performance. Figure 1.3 from Hower and Jones (1991) illustrates the excellent match

with the simulator if a krw = 0.06 is assumed. Also, notice the difference in reservoir

performance between the conventional and modified material balance techniques.

Figure 1.3 Comparison of reservoir performance for conventional and modified material

balance methods and numerical simulation. (Hower and Jones, 1991)

Example 1.3

GWINFLUX is a software application for the modified gas material balance method

provided by GRI. Use the DEMO.DAT file and determine the OGIP.

When applying the material balance equations for oil and gas reservoirs the typical

solution is to rearrange to solve for N and then used to compute OOIP or OGIP at

different times during a reservoir's life. Naturally the results of each calculation vary

somewhat from one time to another. Thus, there are often major questions about the

correct value for OOIP or OGIP, especially if a gas cap or water influx is present.

1.8

A powerful method of removing much of the doubt concerning the accuracy of computed

results was presented by Havlena and Odeh in two papers in 1963 and 1964. The first

paper presents the theory; the second presents field case studies. Havlena and Odeh's

method rearranges the material balance equations into an algebraic form that results in an

equation of a straight line. The procedure requires plotting one variable group versus

another. The shape of the plot and sequence of plotted points provide important insight

into the validity of the assumed reservoir drive mechanism.

The linearized material balance equation for gas reservoirs is:

W B

F

=G+ e w

Et

Et

(1.10)

F = total net reservoir voidage

F = G p B g + W p Bw

(1.11)

Eg = expansion of gas in reservoir

E g = B g B gi

(1.12)

S wi c w + c f

Ecf = B gi *

1 S wi

p p

i

(1.13)

Since G and Gp are usually expressed in SCF, the units of Bg and Bgi are in RCF/SCF. A

plot of F/Et vs WeBw/Et should result in a straight line with intercept of G, the original gas

in place, and slope related to water influx (see Figure 1.4).

B

We too small

We correct

F/Et ,stb

We too large

Intercept=G

We Bw

Et

Figure 1.4 Material balance linear plot for gas reservoirs with aquifer support

1.9

To appropriately interpret Figure 1.4, the material balance equation must be coupled with

a water influx model. For example, for the Fetkovich aquifer model, the slope of the

straight line should be equal to one. If not, different aquifer properties must be used.

Others are the unsteady state Van Everdingen and Hurst and steady state Schilthuis water

influx models. In the former, a straight-line slope provides an estimate of the water

influx constant, B. If the data does not plot as a straight line then different aquifer

properties must be estimated. In the latter, the slope is equal to the water influx constant,

k. Further discussion on water influx properties is beyond the scope of this chapter. For

details the reader is directed to the references at the end of this chapter.

The drive indices for a gas reservoir are defined as follows:

Gas drive index:

GDI =

WDI =

GE g

G p Bg

We Bw W p Bw

G p Bg

CDI =

GEcf

G p Bg

1.10

(1.14)

(1.15)

(1.16)

Example 1.4

The performance history for a gas reservoir with water influx is given in Table 1.2 below.

Solve for the correct gas-in-place using the linearized method.

time

days

1

31

61

92

123

153

184

214

245

276

304

335

365

396

426

457

488

518

549

579

610

641

670

701

731

762

792

823

854

Gp

Bg

mscf

rbbl/mscf

816

0.837

25299

0.843

52191

0.849

83814

0.855

140817

0.868

210174

0.885

260921

0.894

313742

0.905

392389

0.925

429366

0.930

504400

0.952

618738

0.993

733260

1.035

825832

1.067

909022

1.098

949839

1.104

991534

1.117

1031923

1.132

1074335

1.152

1109657

1.167

1145626

1.185

1196897

1.221

1275411

1.289

1315925

1.316

1353185

1.340

1385369

1.360

1427744

1.407

1463357

1.442

1501825

1.488

Wp

stb

0

0

0

0

16563

37934

54497

75868

108994

120036

144969

183615

221015

259662

297061

335708

385396

396082

478896

516296

554942

571505

612823

651469

688869

721995

754052

853428

958326

The example is setup to demonstrate the influence of water influx on identifying the

correct straight line. A cumulative water influx of 831 mbbl, results in a straight line and

estimate of 2.107 Bscf of gas-in-place (See Figure 1.5). A decrease in cumulative water

influx of 484 mbbl. resulted in a concave upwards trend and an increase in cumulative

water influx of 1427 mbbl resulted in a concave downwards trend.

The GDI is approximately constant at 60% and the WDI at 40% for the +2 years of

production history.

1.11

5.0

4.8

4.6

y = 1.0602x + 2.1074

4.4

R = 0.9843

F/Et

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

We/Et

Figure 1.5 Influence of water influx on gas material balance for Example 1.4

Note if no connate water and formation expansion occurs, then Eq. (1.10) reduces to Eq.

(1.5), the standard expression for gas material balance with water drive. Also, if the

reservoir drive mechanism is purely by gas expansion (depletion drive), then Eq. (1.10)

reduces to:

F = GEt

(1.17)

A plot of F vs Et should be a straight line through the origin with slope of G.

1.3.2 Abnormally pressured gas reservoirs

effects result in a nonlinear p/z vs cumulative plot. Figure 1.6 is a schematic illustrating

this behavior. The rate of decrease of pressure during the early time is reduced due to

support of these compressibility components. Extrapolation of this initial slope will

result in an overestimation of gas-in-place and reserves. As pressure reduces to a normal

gradient, the formation compaction influence on the reservoir becomes negligible and

thus the remaining energy comes from the expansion of the gas in the reservoir. This

accounts for the second slope in Figure 1.6.

1.12

Gas expansion

+

Formation compaction

+

Water expansion

(p/z)i

p/z

Gas expansion

Overestimate of G

Gp

Figure 1.6 nonlinear p/z vs Gp plot due to formation and water compressibility effects.

Assuming no water influx or production and no injection, then the general material

balance equation (1.3) reduces to:

Gp

1

G

p

=

z 1 c e( p ) ( p i p )

pi

zi

(1.18)

ce(p) by Ramagost and Farshad (1981) where in terms of constant pore and water

compressibilities.

c S + cf

c e = w wi

(1.19)

(1 S wi )

Average values were assumed thus removing the complication of pressure dependency.

To determine gas-in-place, the p/z term (y-axis) is linearized by plotting,

p (c w S wi + c f )(p i p)

1

vs G p

z

(1 S wi )

Example 1.5

Estimate the original gas-in-place for the data given by Duggan (1972) for the Anderson

L sand. Apply both the conventional and geopressured material balance equations.

Given:

= 9,507 psia

pi

= 3.2 x 10-6 psi-1

cw

Swi

= 0.24

= 19.5 x 10-6 psi-1

cf

Original pressure gradient = 0.843 psi/ft

1.13

p,psia

9507

9292

8970

8595

8332

8009

7603

7406

7002

6721

6535

5764

4766

4295

3750

3247

z

1.440

1.418

1.387

1.344

1.316

1.282

1.239

1.218

1.176

1.147

1.127

1.048

0.977

0.928

0.891

0.854

Gp,Bcf

0

0.3925

1.6425

3.2258

4.2603

5.5035

7.5381

8.7492

10.5093

11.7589

12.7892

17.2625

22.8908

28.1446

32.5667

36.8199

Figure 1.7 displays the results of the conventional material balance. Gas-in-place is

estimated to be 89.3 Bcf.

Volumetric (normal pressured)

8000

y = -74.679x + 6667.5

R2 = 0.9929

7000

p/z, psia

6000

5000

4000

3000

G=89.3

2000

1000

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gp, Bcf

Figure 1.8 shows the results when using the geopressured approach. The resulting gasin-place is 70.7 Bscf. Thus if the conventional approach is taken, the gas-in-place will be

overestimated by more than 25%.

1.14

Volumetric (geopressured)

7000

y = -92.336x + 6532.2

R2 = 0.9979

6000

5000

4000

3000

G=70.7

2000

1000

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gp, Bcf

The above example assumed that formation compressibility was both known and

constant. However, frequently formation compressibility varies during pressure

depletion, and is difficult to obtain in the laboratory. Roach (1981) developed a material

balance technique for simultaneously estimating formation compressibility and gas-inplace and was later applied by Poston and Chen (1987) to the Anderson L example. The

revised material balance equation is:

1 p i z 1 G p p i z S wi c w + c f

(1.20)

1 =

(p i p ) pz i G (p i p ) pz i

1 S wi

If the formation compressibility is constant then a straight line will develop with a slope

= 1/G and an intercept = -(Swicw + cf)/(1-Swi).

Example 1.6

Repeat example 1.5 and estimate both gas-in-place and formation compressibility.

Figure 1.9 shows the results from this analysis. The original gas-in-place is estimated

from the slope,

1000

G=

= 75.8 Bscf

13.199

and the formation compressibility from the intercept,

c f = bx106 (1 S wi ) S wi cw = 12.5 x106 psi 1

The deviation from the straight line at early time is due to the pore fluids supporting the

overburden pressure. However, as fluids are withdrawn the formation compacts, thus

transferring more of the support on the rock matrix.

1.15

Geopressured

150

100

y, psi 1

y = 13.199x - 17.511

R2 = 0.993

50

0

0

10

12

14

x, mmscf/psi

volumetric geo-pressured gas reservoir, Example 1.6

Fetkovich, et al. in 1991 further expanded the effective compressibility term by including

both gas solubility and total water associated with the gas reservoir volume. The

resulting expression accounts for pressure dependency.

ctw( p) S wi + c f ( p) + M [ctw( p ) + c f ( p) ]

ce( p ) =

(1.21)

(1 S wi )

The cumulative total water compressibility, ctw, is composed of water expansion due to

pressure depletion and the release of solution gas in the water and its expansion. The

associated water-volume ratio, M accounts for the total pore and water volumes in

pressure communication with the gas reservoir. This includes non-net pay water and pore

volumes such as in interbedded shales and shaly sands, and external water volume found

in limited aquifers. The authors defined both terms as:

M = M NNP + M aq

=

2

r

(

)

h

aq

aq

+

1

(h ) r

r r

nnp 1 hn / hg

r hn / hg

(1.22)

where

nnp

r

aq

hn/hg

- reservoir (net pay) property

- aquifer property

- net to gross ratio

The proposed method of obtaining gas-in-place requires a trial and error solution.

Historical pressure and production data is coupled with an assumed gas-in-place value to

1.16

equation.

(p / z )i G p 1

1

(c e )backcalculated = 1

(1.23)

(p / z ) G (p i p )

The effective compressibility from Eq. (1.23) can be plotted as a function of pressure,

and compared to values determined from rock and fluid properties in Eq. (1.21). A

reasonable fit between the two methods provides an estimate of gas-in-place and a

measure of physical significance to the results.

Example 1.7

Fetkovich, et al tested their method on the Anderson L sand data from Duggan (1971).

Additionally, they calculated total water compressibility as a function of pressure. Using

their values of ctw, a G = 72 Bscf, cf = 3.2 x 10 -6 psi -1, and M = 2.25, the following

results were obtained.

ce, psi 1

50

45

w ater properties

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

pressure, psia

with the rock and fluid property derived values.

Figure 1.10 shows best fit results after varying M, cf, and G, respectively. (The authors

also varied Swi and decided on Swi = 0.35. In Fig 1.10 the original Swi = 0.24 was

maintained.)

Figure 1.11 shows the performance match and prediction using the

variables listed above. The estimated gas-in-place of 72 Bcf is within the range of the

previous methods. Notice the first data points at high pressure in Figure 1.10 do not fit

the correlation drawn. These points correspond to the same data points which deviate

from the straight line in Figure 1.9, and thus the same explanation is believed valid for

this method as well.

The disadvantages of the Fetkovich, et al method are the requirement of rock and water

properties to build the effective compressibility correlation, the assumption that cf is

constant, and the non-uniqueness of the solution since multiple combinations of the

1.17

variables can yield the same outcome. The advantage is the addition of the pressure

dependency of the water compressibility and the development of a physical basis for the

analysis.

7000

model

6000

p/z, psia

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

0

20

40

60

100

80

Gp, Bscf

Figure 1.11 Performance match and prediction for the Anderson L reservoir.

relationship between pressure/z-factor (p/z) and cumulative production. Unfortunately,

tight gas reservoirs do not exhibit this type of behavior, but instead develop a nonlinear

trend (see Figure 1.12), which is not amenable to conventional analysis.

(p/z)i

p/z

(p/z)int

m ?

2 =

m

1

Tig

ht g

as r

e

Co

nv

en

tio

na

lr

esp

spo

on

nse

se

Gp

Figure 1.12 P/z response for conventional gas reservoir and a tight gas reservoir.

1.18

The nonlinear trend is a function both of the pressure measurement technique and the

reservoir characteristics. Typical shut in periods are not of sufficient duration to achieve

a representative average reservoir pressure. This concept can be reinforced by examining

the criteria for reaching pseudosteady state flow.

t

pss

= 3790

i cti A

k

DApss

(1.24)

Assuming a well located in the center of the drainage area and substituting typical

reservoir and gas properties for a tight gas formation ( = 11%, k = 0.1 md, gi = 0.012

cp., cti = 0.001 psi-1), results in a time to reach pseudosteady state of 2 years for an 80acre drainage area and 16 years for a 640-acre drainage area. Subsequently, a single

buildup pressure measurement after seven days of shut in will not achieve such a

boundary condition.

To analyze low-permeability reservoirs the following constraints are applied: (1) no

water influx, (2) constant reservoir temperature, (3) no rock compressibility effects, and

(4) only single phase dry gas; i.e., no phase changes occur in the reservoir. Furthermore,

to simplify the analysis the bottomhole flowing pressure will be assumed to be constant

over the life of the well. A reasonable assumption for dry gas wells controlled by surface

line pressure.

Referring to Figure 1.12, three trends are exhibited on the p/z plots for low permeability

reservoirs. During the early time period a rapid decrease in pressure occurs. If this trend

is extrapolated to p/z = 0, the gas-in-place (G) will be seriously underestimated. The

behavior has been previously explained as the response to transient flow (Slider, 1983);

however, additional analysis did not confirm this hypothesis. An alternative solution is

the rapid depletion of a stimulated well in a reservoir consisting of a natural fracture

network; in simple terms, the flush production associated with such a condition. Coupled

with this behavior is the inability of the pressure measurement technique to capture

reservoir pressure within the testing time. Subsequently, as the drainage radius is

expanding the testing pressure deviates more and more from the average reservoir

pressure.

The intermediate period exhibits uniform slope over an extended period of time, even

though, the magnitude of the pressure measurement observed is significantly below the

average reservoir pressure. During this period, the test time is too short to capture the

average pressure response; however, consistency of the data suggests that a similar region

is being repeatedly investigated by the pressure test. For example, notice in Figure 1.13

the difference in pws and pr is approximately constant for an extended period of time.

Several researchers (Stewart,1970) (Brons and Miller, 1961) have presented methods to

correct measured data to average reservoir pressure by pressure buildup techniques.

1.19

Pi

ri

Pwf

.472re

rw

re

Figure 1.13 Schematic of a partial buildup response in a tight gas reservoir, indicating the

difference in measured pws and average reservoir pressure, pr.

The constant slope provides an opportunity to estimate the hydrocarbon-pore volume,

Vhc. Defining the slope (m) as;

m=

(p / z)

G p

(1.25)

and substituting into the gas material balance equation, results in an expression to

determine Vhc.

TP

1

Vhc = sc *

Tsc m

(1.26)

Vhc = 43560Ah(1 S w )

(1.27)

From volumetrics,

Furthermore, from the observation of a constant slope, three scenarios can be developed

to determine the gas-in-place as illustrated in Figure 1.14. The problem is defining the

relationship between the determined slope and the actual slope if one could measure the

actual reservoir pressure. Case A exhibits two parallel trends of constant slope; i.e., m1 =

m2. Gas-in-place can readily be obtained from,

p

G= i

z

i

1

*

m

(1.28)

The difference in gas-in-place between the two lines is due to the initial reservoir

pressure difference; and not the hydrocarbon pore volume, which is the same for both

lines.

1.20

m2

Case A

m

P/zz

P/

Case C

P/z

=m

Gp

G 1 G2

Gp

m

m11

mm

22

G 1 G 2

Case B

(p/z)int

P/z

Gp

G1= G2

Figure 1.14. Three possible relationships between the conventional response and the tight

gas response.

To have equal slopes suggests the radius of investigation of the pressure test is expanding

at the same rate as the radius of drainage of the reservoir. That is, ri constant* re over

an extended period of time. The magnitude of gas-in-place will be overestimated by this

method and therefore provides an upper bound to the well.

In case B the slopes are different, but the intersection point occurs at the same gas-inplace. Estimation of G is obtained by,

1 pi

p

G= *

=

z int m1 zi

1

*

m

2

(1.29)

where the (p/z)int is the intercept value from the identified pressure trend. To solve for

the correct Vhc requires the substitution of m2 into Eq. (1.26). Subsequently, the

hydrocarbon pore volume is corrected to reflect the difference in reservoir pressures. For

this behavior to occur means the investigative volume seen during subsequent pressure

tests is approaching the average drainage volume of the well. In other words, ri

0.472re. This is as expected for depleted reservoirs where the pressure gradient is

approximately uniform throughout the reservoir.

1.21

The third and final scenario (Case C) exhibits both a different slope and intercept

between the measured pressure trend and the actual reservoir behavior. Unfortunately,

the measured data does not reflect the actual reservoir behavior. The best is to estimate a

range for gas-in-place using Case A as the upper bound and case B as the lower bound.

A final stage of the life of the well occurs when depletion has been significant (see Fig.

1.12). At this time the measured pressure curve flattens and becomes constant;

converging to the actual average reservoir pressure. In many cases the gas-in-place was

estimated by extending a straight line from the initial p/z point through this late time

point. Experience has shown this method typically underestimates gas-in-place, due to

the late time measured pressure slightly underpredicting the actual reservoir pressure.

Also, as Fetkovich, et.al. (1987) correctly point out, a rise in pressure can be a rebound

effect due to a decrease in withdrawal from the reservoir.

Example 1.8

The example well produces from the Pictured Cliffs sandstone in the San Juan Basin of

northwest New Mexico. Picture Cliffs is a low permeability, sandstone to shaly sandstone

gas reservoir found at a depth of approximately 3200 feet and developed on 160 acre

spacing (Dutton, et al, 1983). The example well (No.114) was initially completed in

1958 and included a hydraulic fracture treatment to be commercially productive. Other

well and reservoir data are listed below. The long history of production and pressure data

make this well an excellent candidate for investigation.

11

0.0134

gi, cp

h, ft

40

-1

-4

cti, psi x 10

5.77

0.67

g

Tr , deg F

106

Sw, %

44

rw, ft.

0.229

Pi, psi

1131

Table 1.3 Input well and reservoir properties

Figure 1.15 is the p/z vs cumulative production plot for this well. In the San Juan Basin,

pressure data is recorded over a 7-day shut in period and reported annually until 1974 and

every other year until 1990. The primary purpose of collecting this information was for

deliverability testing and proration. Notice the typical tight gas well response of a rapid

decrease in pressure within the first year. This behavior does not correspond to the end

of the transient period, which occurs 8 to 10 years later according to decline curve

analysis. The majority of time and hence cumulative production exhibits case B

behavior; i.e., constant p/z decline. Applying Eq. (1.29) this trend results in an estimate

of 660 mmscf of gas-in-place.

1.22

No. 114

1600

1400

P/Z, psia

1200

1000

800

600

400

y = -0.8367x + 552.88

R2 = 0.958

200

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Figure 1.15. Field example of tight gas response (Case B) on p/z plot and estimation of

gas-in-place.

Also shown on Figure 1.15 is an extrapolation between the initial p/z and the anomalous

increase in p/z found in the latest data points; resulting in 520 mmscf of gas-in-place.

Frequently this extrapolation is applied to tight gas wells to estimate gas-in-place and

recovery. The validity of the last points is pivotal to this method being successful or not.

These pressure points were acquired during a time of extended cycles of shutin and

production due to external constraints. The resulting bottomhole flowing pressure is

increased which subsequently translates into an increase in recorded shutin bottomhole

pressure. This is the same conclusion as drawn by Fetkovich, et al. in 1987. Unless this

pressure data is obtained very late in the life of the well it is likely this method will

underestimate gas-in-place and reserves.

Cumulative production (through 2006) for this well is 526 mmscf; therefore 80% of the

gas-in-place has been recovered. A rate cumulative plot (Figure 1.16) also provides a

linear trend, which when extrapolated results in gas-in-place of 700 mmscf or 75%

recovery. Both methods are within reasonable agreement.

1.23

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

A key to tight gas development is the drainage area of existing wells and the feasibility of

infill drilling. Using Equation (1.29) to adjust the slope, the hydrocarbon pore volume is

calculated to be 7.544 mmrcf. Substitution of the known gas and well properties results

in a drainage area calculation of 70 acres.

To further investigate the tight gas, pressure behavior, a single well, simulation model

was developed for single-phase flow. As a simplification, the reservoir properties were

assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic. The well was bottomhole pressure

constrained, initially at 250 psi and then reduced to 150 psi ten years later. This change

reflects the actual pressures measured during the annual deliverability tests. Figure 1.17

illustrates the excellent match between the results from the simulator with the measured

data for both gas rate and shutin bottomhole pressure. The success of the model verifies

the linear trends seen on the gas material balance plots and the slow pressure response of

tight gas reservoirs. Furthermore, to obtain this match the areal extent of the simulation

model was 86 acres, which is in agreement with the previous methods.

The analysis suggests this well has drained 70 to 90 acres of the dedicated 160-acre

proration unit and has recovered approximately 70% of the gas-in-place within that

volume. The paradox is the boundary-dominated flow exhibited by the decline curve.

The nearest well is approximately 1850 feet away from the subject well, farther than the

estimated drainage area. Two explanations can be given. First, the drainage calculations

are based on isotropic conditions and therefore a circular drainage pattern. However, if

anisotropy exists, then the two wells are sufficiently close enough to provide interference.

Investigation of production and geological trends show a dominant northwest/southeast

direction, the exact direction of these two wells. Second, a thinning of the reservoir net

pay thickness over the areal extent of this well would increase the drainage area. For

example if thickness is reduced by half then the drainage area doubles to approximately

160 acres.

1.24

1000

1200

1000

measured

100

800

600

10

SIBHP, psi

simulated

400

200

0

0

10

15

20

25

time, years

Figure 1.17 Comparison of simulation results with measured data for Pictured Cliffs

example.

1.25

References

Agarwal, R.G., Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, Jr., H.J.: The Importance of Water Influx in

Gas Reservoirs, JPT (Mar. 1965).

Brons,F and Miller, W.C.:A Simple Method for Correcting Spot Pressure Readings,

(1961) Trans., AIME 222, 803-805.

Carter,R.D. and Tracy, G.W.: An Improved Method for Calculating Water Influx, JPT,

(Dec. 1960)

Duggan, J.O. The Anderson L An Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir in South

Texas, JPT 24, No. 2, pp. 132-138, (Feb. 1972).

Dutton,S.P., Clift,S.J., Hamilton,D.S., Hamlin,H.S., Hentz, T.F., Howard, W.E.,

Akhter,M.S., and Laubach,S.E.: Major Low Permeability Sandstone Gas Reservoirs in

the Continental United States, GRI/BEG Report No. 211 (1993)

Engler, T.W.: A New Approach to Gas Material Balance in Tight Gas Reservoirs, SPE

# 62883, presented at the ATCE in Dallas, TX (2000).

Fetkovich, M.J.: A Simplified Approach to Water Influx Calculations- Finite Aquifer

Systems, JPT, (July 1971), p814.

Fetkovich,M.J., Vienot,M.E., Bradley,M.D. and Kiesow, U.G. : Decline-Curve Analysis

Using Type Curves-Case Histories, SPEFE (Dec. 1987) 637-656.

Fetkovich, M.J., Reese, D.E. and Whitson, C.H.: Application of a General Material

Balance for High-Pressure Gas Reservoirs, SPE 22921, presented at the ATCE in

Dallas, TX. (October 1991)

Geffen, T.M., Parrish, D.R., Haynes, G.W., and Morse, R.A.: Efficiency of Gas

Displacement from Porous Media by Liquid Flooding, Trans AIME 195, pp 29-38

(1952).

Hammerlindl, D.J. Predicting Gas Reserves in Abnormally Pressure Reservoirs, paper

presented at the SPE ATCE in New Orleans, La., (Oct 1971).

Havlena, D. and Odeh, A.S.: The Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight Line,

Trans. AIME Part 1: 228 I-896 (1963), Part 2: 231 I-815 (1964).

Hower, T.L. and Jones, R.E.: Predicting Recovery of Gas Reservoirs Under Waterdrive

Conditions, SPE 22937, presented at the ATCE in Dallas, TX (Oct. 1991)

1.26

Ikoku, C.U.: Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering, Krieger Publishing Co., Malabar, FL

(1992)

Lee, J. and Wattenbarger, R.A.: Gas Reservoir Engineering, SPE Textbook Series, Vol 5,

Richardson, TX 1996.

Poston, S. W. and Chen, H-Y.: Simultaneous Determination of Formation

Compressibility and Gas-in-Place in Abnormally Pressured Reservoirs, SPE 16227

presented at the 1987 Production Operations Symposium in OKC, OK (March 1987).

Ramagost, B.P. and Farshad, F.F: p/z Abnormal Pressured Gas Reservoirs, SPE 10125,

presented at the ATCE in San Antonio, TX (Oct. 1981).

Roach, R.H. :Analyzing Geopressured Reservoirs A Material Balance Technique,

SPE paper 9968, Dallas, Tx, (Dec. 1981).

Schafer, P.S., Hower, T.L., and Owens, R.W.: Managing Water-Drive Gas Reservoirs,

published by GRI (1993)

Slider,H.C.: Worldwide Practical Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods, Pennwell

Publishing, Tulsa, OK (1983)

Stewart,P.R.: Low-Permeability Gas Well Performance at Constant Pressure, JPT,

(Sept. 1970) 1149-1156.

Van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: Application of the Laplace Transform to Flow

Problems in Reservoirs, Trans AIME 186, pp 305-324, (1949)

1.27

Problems

1. One well has been drilled in a volumetric (closed) gas reservoir, and from this well

the following information was obtained:

Initial reservoir temperature, Ti

Initial reservoir pressure, pi

Specific gravity of gas, g

Thickness of reservoir, h

Porosity of the reservoir,

Initial water saturation,

= 175F

= 3000 psia

= 0. 60 (air = 1)

= 10 ft

= 10%

Swi = 35%

After producing 400 MMscf the reservoir pressure declined to 2000 psia. Estimate the

areal extent of this reservoir.

2. Reservoir temperature is 180F. Reservoir pressure has declined from 3400 to 2400

psia while producing 550 MMscf. Standard conditions are 16 psia and 80F. Gas

gravity is 0.66. Assuming a volumetric reservoir, calculate the initial gas-in-place and

the remaining reserves to an abandonment pressure of 500 psia, all at the given

standard conditions.

3. A gas field with an active water drive showed a pressure decline from 3000 to 2000

psia over a 10-month period. From the following production data, match the past

history and calculate the original hydrocarbon gas in the reservoir. Assume z = 0.8 in

the range of reservoir pressures and T = 600F.

time

months

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

p

psia

3000

2750

2500

2250

2000

Gp

mmscf

0.0

97.6

218.9

355.4

500.0

4. The material balance plot below is for Well No .88, completed in the Picture Cliffs

Formation in the San Juan Basin as described in Example 1.4. Well and reservoir

properties are given below.

11

, %

0.0131

gi, cp

h, ft

67

cti, psi-1 x 10-4

6.22

0.67

g

Tr , deg F

103

Sw, %

44

rw, ft.

0.229

Pi, psi

1045

1.28

Estimate the gas-in-place and drainage area for this well. If cumulative production

was 752 mmscf, what has been the recovery factor?

1400

1200

p/z, psia

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0

200

400

600

800

1000

5. Ramagost and Farshad (1981) provided the following information for an offshore

Louisiana gas reservoir.

= 11,444 psia

pi

= 19.5 x 10-6 psia-1

cf

Swi

= 0.22

= 3.2 x10-6 psia-1

cw

p,psia

11444

10674

10131

9253

8574

7906

7380

6847

6388

5827

5409

5000

4500

4170

z

1.496

1.438

1.397

1.330

1.280

1.230

1.192

1.154

1.122

1.084

1.054

1.033

1.005

0.988

Gp,Bcf

0

9.92

28.62

53.60

77.67

101.42

120.36

145.01

160.63

182.34

197.73

215.66

235.74

245.90

p/z

7650

7423

7252

6957

6698

6428

6191

5933

5693

5375

5132

4840

4478

4221

a. assuming a normally pressured gas reservoir

b. assuming a geopressured reservoir and known cf

c. assuming a geopressured reservoir with an unknown, but constant cf.

1.29

- Bs Petroleum Engineering CurriculumЗагружено:Warren Aala Dimaala
- 4.02Загружено:rouholah.ahmadi9876
- Morad 2008Загружено:Andriani Rini
- Darya 2016Загружено:husseinhsh
- New Transfer Function for Simulation of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs With Dual Porosity ModelsЗагружено:Khairul Rizki
- SPE-108180-MS-PЗагружено:msmsoft
- KMadaoui Sahil Proj.solutionsЗагружено:Abdul Rehazk
- 8-A Thermodynamics Introduction to GasesЗагружено:Ariel Raye Rica
- surfactantesЗагружено:Anonymous C1ahY2
- Sand Problem COMPЗагружено:Osman Tikus
- Flow Assurance and Multiphase PumpingЗагружено:DoHoa
- Some Fundamentals 027925 Mbp GeologyЗагружено:GrazielleLeite
- L1 Water ContentЗагружено:Sarah NeoSkyrer
- Recuperacion Secundaria OportunidadЗагружено:Sebastian Espin
- chapter 1Загружено:Jitendra Vaish
- FDP First Review Rev1.pptЗагружено:Paola Matìas Galdea
- simresЗагружено:Fajar Fadlian
- Oil and Gas Production DetailsЗагружено:panthaloor
- FDP Aiman J [January 2011]Загружено:Pu Thea
- 1produced_water.pdfЗагружено:eugeniuciobanu
- Wettability May Be the Single Most ImportantЗагружено:heydaripost
- Resistivity Fractal Dimension for Characterizing Shajara Reservoirs of the permo-carboniferous shajara formation Saudi ArabiaЗагружено:Professor Khalid Elyas Mohamed Elameen Alkhidir
- 7-Migration_ Accumulation & FMI-Dipmeter InterpretationЗагружено:Yoyok Hartoyo
- Pbu MultiphaseЗагружено:liannethea
- Poster EORЗагружено:Yong Wen Pin
- Sc Re Chap14- PvtЗагружено:weldsv
- Vao Liq Alta PresionЗагружено:pe
- Chap_2Загружено:senthil
- Introduction to Offshore Petroleum Production SystemЗагружено:JoaoCOS
- waterflooding under fracturing conditionsЗагружено:Amey Dhaygude

- Flo ThruЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- 06-DeconLSQЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Gas Condensate Reservoir AnalysisЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- HSE VocablaryЗагружено:Arslan Bohio
- RIPI Courses Fehrest-MozoeeЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Formation DamageЗагружено:Caleb Jonatan Montes Velarde
- Advertisement DesignЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- GradientsЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Investment and Decision Analysis for Petroleum ExplorationЗагружено:sandro0112
- Drilling Rig DictionaryЗагружено:ahmad-pakbaz
- Smart WellЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Educational CallЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- n323annexaЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- E&P ScreeningЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- bosini_L02351-L02353_ZoeЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- PSM and MethodsЗагружено:Azizi Aziz
- Driving Safety for Spe Workshop Spegcs Society of Petroleum2218Загружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- PVT expressЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Radius of Pressure Influence of Injection WellsЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Slug testЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- flaringpracticesinpetroleumindustry-100428192806-phpapp01Загружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- Applied Well Test AnalysisЗагружено:-yanyan-
- Choke Formula for Oil RateЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- c Cat Ranarex GravitometerЗагружено:Francisco Ramirez
- Annular Pressure Measurements.pdfЗагружено:Eduardo Guajardo
- Cement SqueezeЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh
- ChokeЗагружено:robertmika
- choke rate calculation.pdfЗагружено:Hadi Hendizadeh

- Griflam_gb de Messer-1Загружено:lcorao
- W501F Engine Enhancements to Improve Operation.pdfЗагружено:EDB
- Setup Guide-NOS v3 0 3Загружено:Camson Huynh
- 50 450 60 Final Bermad Float ValveЗагружено:Clinton Black
- Welding HandbookЗагружено:Hung Le
- 16 Brochure Ramrod950 1150Загружено:Vitara Offroad
- project 2 report docxЗагружено:api-271653264
- 2h7 Hydraulic JumpЗагружено:Iqbal Hakimi
- Treeview MenuЗагружено:api-26282464
- Solution Homework1Загружено:Justin Park
- D31PX-21 SN 50001-50499 Partsbook.pdfЗагружено:Mbahdiro Kolenx
- Muscle MechanicsЗагружено:Amelutza Amy
- Thermal Management in Vehicles With Electric Drive System - Porsche Engineering Magazine 01-2011 (1)Загружено:Anubhav Sharma
- rock shox air inflationЗагружено:Duder
- The Unofficial MacGyver How-To Handbook Revised 2nd EditionЗагружено:bret
- IEEE - Developing Effective Engineering LeadershipЗагружено:jeffclist2
- DMO Tips and TricksЗагружено:tikkana
- Artificial Neural Networks Lec1Загружено:N.M.Jashuva
- InfoSphere CDC IBM i - Installation (1).pdfЗагружено:Dileepkumar Janga
- Integrated Project EvaluationЗагружено:Rohit Chakole
- 0381622r01_HW-U1-VCU110_REV1_0_SCHEMATIC_20150921_160728Загружено:the_citizen89
- BOQ IP RAN Batch1_uni_Network Product Line_000000104516201106230001_229733_BOQ_676001_1Загружено:Stefanus Enggar Pradipta
- 12 VSWR MeasurementsЗагружено:pkjhaiete
- Provision System zЗагружено:Daud Antony Bonte
- master slave relations solutions 402 .pdfЗагружено:Juhl
- Andrew DBXLH-6565A-VTM (1.3m)Загружено:AnnBliss
- A Survey on Identifying Operational ATM and Optimization of Cash Management using Mobile AppЗагружено:International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
- Syllabus 6th SemЗагружено:Shikhar Kumar
- 02_wholeЗагружено:Roxana Elena
- JW-STH Digital Carbonization Depth Gauge-Steel Anvil-JEWEL ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENT COЗагружено:Gueiza Gutierrez Herbas

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.